friends or foes in the aftermath of conflict

[kobayashi]

is there any historical precedence for america, or any nation, being unfriendly to another who has chosen not to participate in a conflict? is participation in a war really a pre-requisite for good trade relations?

 

[melon]

I don't think Dubya knows his history anyway, nor does he care.

Melon

 

[diamond]

I disagree and
plus he dresses well
DB9

 

[Lilly]

he ususally has a red tie on.


that's an interesting question kobe, i'll look into it when i get back from class today.

 

[U2girl]

To your first question - I don't know. To your second question I would say I see no reason for that.
I fear some economic retaliation might follow...

 

[Lilly]

is there any historical precedence for america, or any nation, being unfriendly to another who has chosen not to participate in a conflict? is participation in a war really a pre-requisite for good trade relations?

ok kobesan, I've got a few examples here for you since I'm not exactly sure what your questions entailed.

Example 1: Finland and the United States after WWI. Up until 1917, the US had a policy of neutraility, meaning it could loan money and goods to belligerent countries, but not *participate* (of course, the US only lent to Britain and her allies). After WWI, most of the countries were looking for ways to get out of paying the debt to the US, and the German economy was so bad it couldn't pay back anything to the US without going bankrupt (by 1923, the dollar was equal to almost a trillian deutschmarks). The only country that paid the US back in full? Finland. Then as WWII was burgeoning, the US was declaring acts of neutrality to avoid getting into this second European war. That is, of course, until a Finnish ship was attacked. Then the US started taking a closer look at Hitler.

Point: People who stay in good standing, keep good standing. Because Finland was kind enough to pay back their full debt to the US, the US knew that offering their services to aid Finland again was a small calculated risk.

Example 2: The Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles ended WWI and was signed in Versailles, France in 1919. It demanded that Germany lose the Alsace-Lorraine territory, give up much of its industry, almost completely disarm, cut its military almost in half, that it can't maintain reserves, destroy navy boats and u-boats, and pay HUGE reparations. The US Congress never ratified the Treaty of Versailles, and therefore never claimed as harsh reparations as Britain and France had. When Germany hit economic troubles in the 1920s, the US loaned Germany a lot of money, which Germany in turn used to pay Britain (Britain was buying US goods, so it was a triangular trade of economic goodness).

Point: Even though we just fought a war with them, the US still loaned Germany the money. According to Keynsian economics, a poor Germany = a poor United States (a huge step in thinking for the time), and the last thing the US wanted was to be poor.

These examples are the closest I could come up with to what's happening now, though the situation is a bit different. With the globalization of the economy, no one can afford a major player to have a weak economy or have sanctions on one another. It's not like the US is going to sanction Canadian goods out of nowhere because you're not supporting the war. It would be too damaging to our already hurting economy. But, as the past has shown, people who participate with the US or aid the US will probably get a bit more preference in the future.

Does that answer the question?

I can look more if you want.

 

[kobayashi]

that's perfect, lilly.

thanks. i am meeting with some people from the US embassy here in ottawa next week as part of a governance research project i am involved in.

long term troubles aren't likely to persist because of canada's passive attitude toward iraq, but there could be significant short term upheaval. especially in terms of the softwood lumber dispute.

ambassador celluci was very critical of the liberal government yesterday at the economic club of ottawa. celluci lamented canada's lack of involvement in the war, but also the poor management of outspoken liberal MPs who went largely unpunished after criticizing american's in general, the administration, or bush himself.

well this is damaging to US canada relations, the most hurtful aspect for chretien's liberals is liable to be come election time.

thanks again lilly

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't think Dubya knows his history anyway, nor does he care.
Melon

Not true, Melon. When Bush first came into office, he had a "think tank" come in and they discussed indepth all current world issues.